Return of the Canadian Atheist

It's fascinating to me how easily someone in one religion can find the fallacies and biases in another religion.

I think that what's fascinating... You're razor sharp on your criticism of Islam here.

Yeah. But what I find fascinating, Jeff, is that you recognize that with other religions, but you don't do it with your own.

Because I... That may be the case. And there's that confirmation bias coming up again.

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport.

All right. We are live, Apologetics Live, here to answer your apologetic questions or to have discussions.

We are live. And again, we're going to have with us the Canadian atheist. He returns.

We got a lot of good feedback with him last week. For those who didn't listen to last week's show, okay, you'll have to re -listen after this show.

But he is a Canadian. So he may say a once in a while. We'll just translate that into English.

And so, but I know that he and Anthony started a discussion at the end of last show.

So we're going to pick that up and continue that discussion today. And he's gotten a lot of good feedback on his show.

He's got a podcast. And so he played it on his. And so we thought it'd be good to continue.

And maybe if he comes back again, Pastor Justin, we'll address more with him.

But so that's what we got for you today. If we bring Anthony up, we probably see him doing his mail there.

You know, he's, he's, you know, you're not a small business owner anymore,

Anthony. You don't have to be always working, doing your mail and things like that.

You know. I don't. No, you don't. So, and for folks who want to join, just go to apoljaxlive .com.

If you want to join in the discussion, if you want to ask any questions of either Michael, the Canadian atheist, or Justin, who is,

Justin's very busy. Look at, look at Justin. Oh, I'm brushing up reading there.

Was that, what do we believe? Yeah. What do we believe? I'm trying to figure out what it is. Yeah. Hey, I actually should play, but I'd have to go on Facebook and find it.

But I don't know if you guys saw my Facebook that there was someone who is using my book.

What do we believe for homeschooling? And they had their daughter reading chapter two on textual criticism.

So that was kind of neat. Yeah. So it's always neat when I have that. So we have someone from New Zealand listening in saying, good afternoon from New Zealand.

Hey brother. So Billy, you got it. You got to find some churches willing to fly me out to New Zealand. I want to go there.

So find a church to have me, me speak there. That'd be really neat.

Then we could actually meet each other. So we're going to bring Michael in. So Michael, welcome to another

Apologetics Live. Greetings and salutations from Canuckland. It's kind of interesting.

You know, it works out well. You and Pastor Justin are on the bottom of the screen with dueling t -shirts.

We have battling t -shirts. Yeah. Battling t -shirts. Michael, what does yours say?

Says godless heathen. Okay. And Justin, yours says? God exists and he has spoken.

Just before we get going, actually, I wanted to just comment a little bit. I wish the record button would have been going much longer yesterday after Andrew and Anthony decided they had better things to do.

Justin and I probably spoke for what, maybe 45 minutes? Yeah. Something like that. We had a great conversation.

We decided we hated each other. It was just, we're ready to go fight. And then I found out that you guys all have guns.

And so I backed down. No, actually we did. We had an incredibly good conversation.

I want to definitely talk about that maybe next time or something. Sure, man. Actually, you guys should just bring it up for this, you know, for us too.

Yeah. We could just sit in the background and, you know, I will give a programming note that some of the

Facebook feeds are maybe having issue. And so there is a problem right now with Facebook and StreamYard.

I'll also mention this is a Ministry of Striving for Eternity. I always forget to do that.

That's bad because Anthony is a board member. He may, you know, punish me somehow. But so if any of you guys want to check out any of the materials at strivingforeturning .org,

we got a bunch of, we got a school on online school. We have syllabuses there.

We have some books. We have some online events that are there. We also have the podcast, which is the

Christian podcast community. That is one of our ministries, 37 podcasts,

I think it's up to now. More to coming. We have, I think, one more that signed a contract and about four more on the way.

So, so it's a growing community of Christian podcasters. And so I encourage you guys to check that out.

And if you if you want, Justin, why don't you and Mike, Michael, go back to the discussion when

Anthony and I, after the show kind of had left and yeah, well,

I think we had just you had just conceded that God doesn't exist. And I think, yeah, I had

I had converted to Christianity. So it was something just like that.

Yeah, exactly like that. Yeah, exactly like that. No, actually, we bounced around a fair bit.

Yeah, we had a lot of different conversations, but, you know, it kind of it kind of went down to the moral discussion, you know, the moral argument.

And to me, that's, you know, we started out having our conversation, Andrew and I.

And, you know, I guess all of us were really having conversations based upon, you know, just evidences.

And I just want to make sure everybody can hear me. Well, well, as long as we're in there. You know,

John was just making a comment about here, I'll put it up here. John's comment was just saying that the mics are working, but the mic, he's saying the mic's mic is pointing at his face.

Should have better sound. I'm not quite sure what the actually what you want to see how we're doing.

Yeah, no, he's talking about Michael's. My Joe earlier post thought that Mike's mic was not picking up his sound, but his laptop was.

No, not possible. I'm hooked up to an audio interface. Yeah, I can hear you just fine.

I can hear you just fine. I can move things a little bit. How's that a little bit better for everybody? And then he also wrote Andrew that something's up with the

StreamYard link. So for somebody who wants to come in like himself, you can't.

Well, Michael, I'm not getting in. Yeah, I came in. I just, you know, have you tried turning it off and turning it back on again?

Yeah, it always works or hit it on the right hand side really hard.

That always fixes computers. Yeah, OK, so so this is totally off topic, but humorous, at least maybe to me.

So I know some of you guys know that my background is computer science. So when I was in college, the most stressful time in college is usually final exam week.

That's when everyone is on my normal sleep hours where they're staying up all night trying to study. And I used to love that week because everyone was up all night long and it was just normal for me.

But it's super stressful in the computer lab back then when you didn't have personal computers because everyone's trying to get on the computer to finish up their final projects.

And so they had at the at the school, one of the computers was dead and wasn't working. And I was given permission.

I wish I had video of this because it had to have been hilarious to see everyone else's face. But I was like pretending like I was typing for like 10, 20 minutes.

And then I'm like banging the keyboard. I start hitting the side of the terminal and they eventually took out a mallet and just started beating the thing and destroyed it.

And then I just got up, threw the mallet in my bag, got up and walked out, walked into the control room where we could see the faces of people and everyone was just like shocked.

Yeah, yeah, no, it was never fixed. So Ted is watching from Sydney, Australia, another place

I'd love to go. Absolutely. So, all right, that's that's enough fooling around.

Let's get to Australia scares me. It's like the place that everything is trying to kill you. Oh, yeah. You know, he would get along well with Fred Butler.

You know, Fred Butler believes that I still want to go there. I mean, like I said, like I said before,

I keep snakes here, but for pythons around me right now, snakes don't scare me.

But, you know, when you have the most toxic ones in the world, all on this relatively small island, it's a little scary.

Relatively small. It's the size of the United States. It's still smaller than Canada.

New Jersey is relatively small compared to like almost anything. But I'm out of that state now.

OK, so I have a question. I don't know if, Justin, you and Michael are going to talk any more about your private station, but far away.

So so why is today called Ask the National Ask an

Atheist a question day today? That's really good. I didn't find out till four o 'clock this afternoon.

I knew that at all. I have a question. Where did you see this, Anthony? It gets tossed up all the time.

People basically people just kind of save it on Facebook and they just kind of chuck it up whenever they feel like it. I think

I think there have been four this year so far. Like it's it's not a it's not a hard and fast thing.

So we should create a Ask a Christian a question day. There you go. Absolutely. Then it might actually be good to see how many people can actually answer questions on both sides.

That would be more fun to see. Yeah, that's a good idea. So so Anthony, that was just to be clear.

That was your question. Why why it's today. That was that was my question. That was your question. I have never heard this before.

So like I said, it's I think it's just something that gets tossed out there. It's at least the fourth one

I've seen this year. But I didn't know about it till, like I said, the four o 'clock stop. OK, fair enough. So, OK, we enjoyed our conversation last week.

I think we kind of want to pick it up where we where we left off. We just we're just starting to talk about science and whatnot.

You know, one general question that that I think a lot of people are probably thinking maybe haven't asked this question yet is, is this, why do you care?

About what? Well, you're an atheist. You don't you don't believe

God exists. No, I believe God doesn't exist. Yeah. Yeah. OK, so God doesn't exist.

So do you why do you care that other people do believe God exists? Like, why do you have a show to speak against the

God that you say doesn't exist? Do you think it's important that people believe things that are true?

I do, if we have a standard of truth. And that's the problem. Right. And so we would say that in a godless universe where it's and this is where we picked off last week, right?

In a godless universe where where everything is is just the result of random chemical reactions from the beginning, there is no objective way to label something right and wrong, true and false.

Right. So we mix, as Justin said last week, we mix baking soda and vinegar together.

That's not right or wrong. It just is. It just it just mixes and we get a reaction.

So so, yeah, I certainly care about truth. I just don't understand what you where it comes from.

So now you're you're mixing me up with Justin. Thanks. Oh, Anthony and Andrew. Now it's

Anthony and Justin. No different. I thought Justin asked that last week. So it's because I'm the good looking.

Yeah, I'd say that's objectively true. Anthony, how do you define truth?

Well, so OK, again, this is the problem. In order to speak about I understand you're going to put an apologetic spin on almost everything, but that's a pretty straightforward question.

I'm going to be a little less charitable this week than I was last week. No, and that's fine. We would love for you to be.

So so we we have to define truth from God. Right. So the only way you can define truth is the same way that it's the only way that you can also have knowledge and know it for certain.

It must come from an omniscient source, one that is all knowing, one who is not only all knowing, but also is the source of truth.

So in our Christian worldview, we have both of those things. We have the ability to have knowledge known for certain and we have the ability to have truth because God is the standard of truth.

And so that is where we get truth from. Defining it, there's no better way to define it than by God himself.

He's the standard of good. He is a standard of truth. And so that's that's where it's on one of our axioms, right, that that's an axiom of ours.

And I have no problem with axioms. I think I've only ever come across a couple of people that said they don't have any axiom, axiom, presupposition, whatever you want to call.

I've only come across a couple of people that have ever said they don't have any, which

I which frankly, I find bizarre. It's dishonest. Yeah, I'm not sure

I go as far as to say it's dishonest because they may still be evaluating it. Like, for example, I kind of have a couple and I and I'm still going through the

I try to check myself every once in a while to see, you know, it's like, OK, is this something also that, you know, I look at as an axiom?

So the ones that so you start with God exists, stuff like that. Right. I start with reality is real.

And that my senses are reliable and I accept that I may have others.

And I've actually I've actually had conversations with people that I said, well, you know, what about this, this and that? And so, yeah, you know what, actually,

I may take that as a as a presupposition as well. But the two that I start with is reality is real.

And if if you if you need to discuss that, I don't know how you get out of bed in the morning.

And as far as our senses being reliable, it's the only way we interpret things, the world that we experience.

So those are my starting points. And I think it's interesting that you said that, you know, you can't. Mike, your mic went out.

We don't. Oh, really? That's really weird. What's the last thing you heard me say? I'm here and I'm fine.

I don't hear your mic either. OK, well, we we're fine. Mike, I hear you.

So, OK, we got Anthony, this equipment that is like almost idiot proof.

Hello. Hello. He just he can't even get that to work. He probably hit a button.

Anthony, if you can hear me, you are audible side on StreamYard. I don't know if you do, but I can't hear anything.

So what are you guys going to have to take over till we figure out what this is? OK, Justin, I'll let you,

Justin, why don't you you guys finish the conversation you had from last week and then I'm going to put

Anthony and I out. So we. Well, we kind of started to dance on this, Justin, so do you want to if you were listening, do you want to just kind of take over from where Anthony and I were?

Sure. I mean, yeah, I was I was talking to my son there, just trying to make sure that everything was working and everything on YouTube and whatnot.

But if you could just kind of jump back where you were at. OK, so basically, Anthony had talked about some axioms and basically he starts with God.

And I said that basically I start with reality is real and my senses are reliable. And those are those are the two presuppositions that I start with.

And what I was about to say, when all of a sudden Anthony said, I can't hear you, is I don't like I accept that as an apologist.

Well, and now Justin's gone. I accept this as an apologist that you might start with.

Well, God is real. And that's that's fine. I view that as an unjustified presupposition because you're you are appealing to an undemonstrated stance.

Like, it's fine to say God is the standard, God is this. But I can say, you know. Flauberber is the standard, but until I demonstrate

Flauberber is real, it's just a thing I'm saying. And now you are not audible,

Anthony. OK, I'll just jump in when you're ready, brother. So, Michael, you.

There it is. I don't know what's going out the road. I have no idea what's going on. Maybe this is a whole

Facebook thing. Anybody who knows the Rodecaster Pro knows that this thing is as easy to use as anything.

I didn't I didn't even touch it. I've been sitting here all the way over there. But it's

I turn off and on and just flip back on. So I don't think it's on your hands, Anthony.

Yeah, it's a good thing that drills are not like this number the whole time. The equipment, you know, he's in drilling someone's teeth or something.

Yeah. OK, so so going back to the issue, here's the issue with the axioms is is that you're you're starting with and actually looks like Chuck just wrote this up there, too.

You're starting with yourself. And so these are these are very arbitrary points in terms of where you're starting with.

And it's and it's a viciously circular reasoning issue. So we're not starting with ourselves, with our axioms.

We are we are saying God. And of course, as a Christian, we go even further because the

God that exists is the same God that, you know, exists by his creation and things that have been made.

And so we talked a little bit about that last week. Yeah. But the problem with that is, is if that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And second, it's cool to state this God exists, but you are appealing to an undemonstrated standard.

OK, so you please demonstrate that this standard exists in an objectively verifiable way that anyone can can look at and get the same result as you.

Yeah. So we've got to define some terms now. So if you're talking about objectively verifiable, how do you objectively verify something in your worldview?

Well, that's interesting, because if if God is supernatural, then we're snookered from the get go. But you're but you're trapped in the same situation

I am, because you don't have any way to test the supernatural any more than I do or to confirm supernatural causation.

You just presuppose it. So cool, but it doesn't get us anywhere.

I start with reality like like you don't deny that reality is real, do you? No, I don't deny that it's real.

And you accept that your that your senses are valid and reasonable and working, right?

Yeah, but for a different reason than you do. And that and that's the issue. Right. So you you you say it's axiomatic, but you are you are begging unto yourself who you would admit is.

So are you omniscient yourself? No, and I don't need to be. OK, so if you're not omniscient yourself, there's there's things out there you don't know that could refute everything you think, you know.

And no, no, that's not true. You're making thematic claims, you're making claims in such a manner, even in axioms, you're making claims and doing so in a world view that doesn't allow you to do this because you.

So what what of what of my my two axioms can I not demonstrate?

Well, demonstrate is is a problem because there's a lot of things we think we can demonstrate that turn out to be wrong.

Right. So the science fields have been chock full of these examples over the years. But you've already conceded reality is real.

So we don't so we can move past that one. Right. And you've already conceded that that our senses are reliable. So I'm starting of I'm starting in a foundation where it actually works.

And you're starting from a foundation that you do not have the capacity to demonstrate. Again, we so we have we have to back up a little bit, though, because you have a ton of assumptions in what you're saying.

When you're saying objective, when you're making objective claims, right, and you're saying that there's must be an objective way to test.

How are you doing this testing? No. So what I'm saying is, is that something where and what

I say objectively verifiable because like you can say, well, like I mean, I read the

Bible, I prayed, I did whatever. And it's just it's so it's so evident to me.

So what I'm asking for is a is an objective standard that anyone that I can test and come to the same result as you.

That's so an objective way of verification and also. More importantly, falsification, because if you can't falsify it, there's a

Wolfgang Pauli, who's a theoretical physicist, he said an unfalsifiable claim isn't even wrong.

Like it doesn't even make it like it's not even worth talking about. So there has to be a way to verify it.

And there also has to be a way to falsify it. Do you have any capacity to objectively demonstrate that this thing that you are certain exists, actually exists in a way

I can find out the same way? Yes, by his creation.

So this is again, we have to we have to take a step back here. Sure. I don't

I don't accept I don't accept this issue of being something being falsifiable. This is what this is what evolutionary scientists continue to use to try to say that evolution is impossible to falsify.

Therefore, it is a good theory. I've never heard a single scientist say evolution is impossible to falsify.

Yeah, well, first of all, can you give me a citation for that? Yeah, I would have to pull that up.

So if we have you on another week, I will. I had literally just pulled this up in a week or so.

Evolution is super easy to falsify. And in fact, like I think I mentioned last week, even even

Charles Darwin said this in after the publication on The Origin of Species. And he said it rather tongue in cheek.

It's like, you know, what would prove your theory wrong? And he said fossilized rabbits in the Procambrian. All you have to do all it's the easiest thing in the world to do.

All any creationist has to do is show one fossil in a in a section of strata where it doesn't belong and evolution falls apart and all walk away from it that day.

Yeah, OK, so so here but here's here's the problem with this is that if you back up even further, as I quoted in my book several times.

Charles Darwin did give a test regarding the issue of of fossils as in terms of the all the missing fossils that should have been there in the

Precambrian layers. So he says that that the fossil record should be teeming with these types of fossils and that right now we stand over 150 years later from the writing of his book and we still don't have these fossils that connect from the

Cambrian Cambrian explosion from the base layer, which has virtually no fossils in it and just a few cells in them.

So we're missing the entire layers that he was saying. If we never find them, we have a problem now, but that's not been enough to falsify evolution for any secular scientist.

Even though their god in Charles Darwin wrote this in his book 150 plus years ago, he's projecting a little bit.

But yeah, I like like I've never I've never met a scientist that deifies another scientist.

And I certainly don't I don't deify anyone or anything, maybe my wife. Well, I mean, you deify yourself, though, because I don't

I completely don't. Well, OK, but see, in order to make the claims you're making about knowledge, when you admit that you can't know everything, that you don't know everything, but you're making.

I didn't say that. You said I can't know everything. OK, so is that one of your axioms now as well, that you are omniscient?

No, I never said that I was omniscient. But what you said was is that I is that I can't know anything and everything. Those were your words.

I know lots of stuff. OK, is there are there things that you don't know?

Sure, there's lots of stuff I don't know. I can't I can't sit here and explain general and special relativity to you.

But that doesn't mean that they're that they're, you know, like them leading to quantum mechanics still aren't the best explanation of how our universe works.

Right. So let me explain our side. Right. Our side is that because God, who himself is omniscient, he's all knowing, there's nothing out there he doesn't know that can that can conflict or go against what he knows.

Right. So God knows it all. And I'm a demonstrated thing. Well, he's he knows it all.

And he has chosen to reveal some of that truth to us and that we can know it for certain that that is the

Christian view. The reason why I can stand here or sit here and make knowledge claims and be able to tell you things for certain is because I rest upon the one who is all knowing.

You're making claims. Like what? Well, you've made everything you've said tonight.

Well, no, give me a specific claim that I'm making that that you're about to say I can't back up. OK, senses are reliable.

How do you know that they work? Are you suggesting your senses aren't reliable?

No, no, no. I'm saying in my world view, I can account for them. And so can I. God, God, God, who is omniscient, made the hearing you're in the seeing eye.

Are you suggesting my senses aren't reliable? I'm saying that your senses are only reliable because you're made in the image of God and you're not accounting for the fact that the only way you can account for him is by God, who you say doesn't exist.

No, what I'm saying is my senses are reliable, but I don't I don't accept your unjustified presupposition.

Right. How do you know they're reliable? Because they work. OK, and they continue to work.

So you're so you're using your senses in order to verify your senses. That's right.

It's virtuously circular. That's not virtuous. Sure it is. If you can if you can claim

God's virtuously circular, then I can claim my senses are. I don't claim God is virtuously circular. OK, that's a necessary starting point.

So it's your necessary starting point. Let me ask a question, Michael. Have your senses been wrong?

Have my senses been wrong? Which which one? Any. I mean, have you ever not been able to recall details?

Have you ever. But those are my senses. That's my memory. Well, that that's going to feed your senses.

How do you know? Because how do you know your senses have always worked? If you if you can't recall things.

Well, I mean, I don't remember being born, but I'm pretty sure I was. And, you know,

I mean, my first time I opened my eyes, I don't remember that. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. But you were and Anthony, you were you were going there.

So I won't ask your question. I'll let you ask it. But you're you're you're relying on your senses.

So this is you brought up vicious versus, you know, the you know, and I know you were, you know, it's a very tongue in cheek.

I know you've you've dealt with you've had sigh on your show. She got to with him in person.

So I know he brings that up a bunch. But it it is a circular argument. If you're relying on the very thing that you're trying to prove, you're trying to prove your senses are reliable.

Your answer is because you they've been in the past. But yet, by that definition, people that come to different conclusions based on their senses, would that also be truth?

No, not necessarily, because our senses like we use our senses to interpret the world around us so I can use my senses to interpret the world and you can use your senses to interpret the world.

And that's what I asked for before is going back, asking for something and a way to objectively verify so that your senses and my senses can see the same thing.

And and there's and like just I mean, I can hold up anything like I can hold up a pen and our senses will both see the same thing.

So I'm saying is like, how can this be such a big deal to demonstrate that this God exists somehow, you know, in a way that my senses.

Can interpret if someone's blind, they that is does that mean they can't have truth because their senses aren't working?

No, not necessarily. But but in a situation like this, so I could come to where you are and you could you could hold the pen, you could touch the pen, you could use the pen.

So you still have you still have other senses, you could hear a piece of music or you could hear someone's voice or you could, you know, you could you could taste it,

I guess, if you really wanted to smell it. So let me get in this. We back to what we talked about last week, but I'm curious to know your answer.

So someone who is born biologically a male but identifies as a female. OK, our senses look at that person and recognize male, are they male?

Well, our senses can't see their can't see their genes and can't see their hormones. Yeah, but we can see we can see that they're male.

We can see physiological features. Well, biological features. Well, yeah, but and as I said to you last week, you have mammary glands and yet you're a male.

Yeah, I still I'm still waiting for the support on those claims where the you said that the testicles are just uteruses on the inside.

I wish there were. Sorry. You know, show me that documentation because I don't find it.

They start this. It's the same cells. And because of the hormones from the

X, Y chromosomes in males, it causes it causes those cells that could proliferate into either ovaries or testes.

It causes them to descend into testes. And for women, because they have X, X, the hormones cause those cells to go.

You just said what I said. OK, but that's OK, but that you just said what

I said. They start out as cells and then they go this way or that way. You just said what I said. But the problem is, is that your conclusion is different than the conclusion

I'm bringing up biologically and scientifically. Your conclusion is that is that is that you're trying to mesh men and women together.

And we're saying men and women are very distinct. Actually, I'm not meshing them together. I don't necessarily think that that's that that's fair.

What I'm saying is, is that we start out like a like a sperm and egg get together and this and the stuff is in there to make male and the stuff is in there to make female.

I don't know exactly when throughout the process, when when the hormone is triggered to go either way. But all of this, all of the stuff for testicles and ovaries and stuff like that are all in those together.

They don't come from somewhere else. Right. So so that is like I said, you said what what

I said. Now it's it either develops one way or develops the other way. Yes. So let me let's do a biologic lesson for everybody on here today.

Women have eggs. They all have the X chromosome only. Men have sperm.

The sperm are either X or Y chromosome. The moment that the egg, which is

X, meets up with the sperm that is X, they join together. It's now fertilized as female from the point of fertilization, it is female if it's an

X and an X. And so therefore, what scientists are trying to say is the same cell going one to the other.

In one way, they're correct. It is the same initial cells that turn into ovaries or testes.

The difference is, is that it's it's at the point of fertilization that when that X hits the other

X, there is hormones and different and different chain reactions that occur that cause all the cells in the body, which are now all

XX. Every cell in the body is XX at that point until the blood starts to form, which which doesn't carry the

XY, nor do, you know, sperm and egg, as we talked about, only take it only as one or the other. But every other cell in the body is going to have

XX from conception. It's a female from conception. On the other side, if it's a

Y sperm that hits the egg, it now it's it's a male at the moment of conception.

And so from here on out, every cell will always be an XY, it'll always be male. So the hormones and again, the other chemical reactions is because of that is what causes those cells to change to one or the other.

Men and women are are completely and distinctly different in that way.

And I know biologists have have tried to to mix and match some of this stuff because we go back to Haeckel's drawings, those fake drawings back in the day where he was trying to claim that the that the early stage fertilization, if cats, bird, human and if camera, what other animals all look the exact same, and that those cells end up developing to different things.

And that's supposed to be proof of evolution. First of all, Haeckel's drawings, if you know anything about them, were forged.

Yeah, they were. So what's interesting about this, and this is something that's really, really easily debunked, you can go back and you can because there was this whole controversy about how

Haeckel was, you know, basically he was lambasted by his university and all this other stuff. And nowhere you won't find a historical record of anyone at his university actually calling him to task on what it is you're asserting.

So so, yes, the drawings are a forgery in that Haeckel never even drew them. And this is too easy.

This is too easily debunked. No, I agree that they that they are, except that they still end up in biology textbooks today.

They're still there. And so something that was easily debunked is still there because because, again, you know, atheists know

God exists. You know, God exists, you know, by his creation and that they will do everything. That's your assertion.

Well, it's God's assertion, but they'll do everything they can to pretend God doesn't exist, including allowing drawings that we know to be fake and known to be fake for a very long time to continue in textbooks today.

And that's just one of many, many things that we see. So so does a does something fake being in a textbook demonstrate that God exists?

Because I'm still waiting for that. Yes. So so while that's like you've asserted a bunch of times and I'm just waiting for you to show me somehow.

Well, I don't have the burden of proof, first of all. The burden of proof is already been given to you by God.

His creation is has made the undemonstrated God. Right. Well, I mean, you claim he's undemonstrated.

But but let's let's go a little bit further. So, again, we have to go back to your senses issue.

You you have established yourself that the senses that you accept work.

Because they come from the omniscient, omnipotent creator. And that's the unjustified assertion.

Oh, so no. So my in my worldview that this would be a this would be a consistency, this would be something that I can account for in my worldview.

In your worldview, why should I accept it? Well, here's the problem. You can't account for any knowledge claims.

Everything that you say you are asserting to be true. And the problem is, is that you can't know things to be certain unless you are omniscient yourself or you're getting your information from somebody who is omniscience.

What if I could demonstrate what if I could demonstrate an absolute an absolute point of knowledge that I possess right now?

Doesn't matter, you can't account for it. There's things, you know, if you drop if you drop a ball and it hits the ground and you do this a bunch of times and you start to assert gravity,

I would say, amen, you believe in gravity. The problem is, is that I can account for gravity in my worldview.

You can't. So you might be able to make observations, but you can make observations because God made you in his image.

So, of course, you can see the same things I do. So God's just an ape. Where are you getting him being an ape from?

Because we're apes. We're not apes. We absolutely are. OK, so where's your where's your science that shows we're apes?

Are we are we hominids? So by the way, you're still making knowledge claims that you can't account for.

So are we hominids? Depends what you're using as a definition for a hominid, because the dictionary definition of hominid, are we hominids?

Again, we have we understand that it's sticky for you to answer an outright question.

Are we hominids? Because definite words have meanings.

Words have usages, not definitions. My my my hominids, my meanings could be the same as yours.

And that's the problem is that we're not from animals. We are. No, you're right. We are animals.

We're not. We're not. We're mainly what's an animal. In God's definition, not not secular science, in God's definition, he made them on days five and six.

And it's it's it's things that have the breadth of life in them, but not human beings.

And that's the issue, we are made in the image of God, animals are not. Animals are in the creation that we have dominion over.

They're clear. It's a clear distinction. We have souls. Animals do not. It's another distinction

God has made between us and animals. So that's another assertion that I'm positive you won't be able to back up, but I would really appreciate an answer from a are we like, can you define animal for me and can you define hominid for me?

Yeah, so again, what's an animal, an animal in the Bible is one that would have the breadth of life in it, not the same breadth of life that humans have, but the breadth of life.

There's a different word for that. But they have a breadth of life. And and the fact is that they're not made in the image of God.

We are. Yeah. So that's that is the difference between us and animals made in the image of the thing you can't demonstrate.

What's a hominid again? Again, God's God's. You're not going to find the word hominid in the

Bible. Can you define hominid for me? That's why I'm not using the word, because it is a secular.

Do you own do you only use words that are found in the Bible? No, but I'm only going to use words that don't have that don't have meanings or connotations to them that are going to that you can't use to support your worldview.

No, that change what a human being actually is. It doesn't change at all what a human being is. I'll give the definitions, which you won't.

And the simplest definition for an animal is a multi -celled eukaryote with an internal digestive tract, which is precisely what we are.

For a man and a hominid, a hominid is a classification of apes, which includes gorillas, chimpanzees, gibbons and us.

We are as much apes as we are mammals and as much as we are eukaryotes.

And it doesn't matter what you think. That is a demonstrable fact.

OK, so so I'm going to I know Justin wants to say something, but I'm going to say I want people to see this again is the circular argument.

The definition preassumes the thing that you're trying to prove. And therefore.

That's a logical it's that it's invalid, logically and false.

So if you want evidence that your worldview just fell apart, there it is.

You can't use definitions. How is that different from what you've done? With what?

With with the with the assertion and the presupposition of God that you can't demonstrate or show in any way, shape or form.

We can show it's the it is that it is the definition of special pleading.

So there is a difference between giving evidence or showing things that can be can be evaluated and you accepting them.

The fact that you don't accept it doesn't mean that we're not giving the evidence. It means that you're not accepting it.

You don't. But doesn't that work the same way with. But the difference is, is everything that I've said, any of you and anyone watching this right now can go out and find the same information and they can't and they won't find it from one source, but they can find it from hundreds and hundreds and hundreds.

And we cannot find one single solitary source where anyone, absolutely anyone can go out there and find this

God that exists. So I want for the audience to I want folks to see what what he's doing here.

What what you're doing, Michael, is you're making statements that you're saying are absolute. You offer absolutely no support other than illogical statements which prove your your statement that your statement has.

Have I made that is illogical? Well, I just showed there's two times you've used circular arguments.

You used an argument that you're trying to prove that a that you said is an absolute fact that a human is a ape.

Yes, it's true. Which the the interesting thing with that is most evolutionists wouldn't hold to that because they would say that apes and humans came from a a missing link that it wasn't directly.

So you're not in agreement with secular evolutionists, but you're claiming is by using a definition that preassumes the thing you're trying to prove.

That's illogical. So it's a logically one. OK, I'm not doing that.

Anthony wasn't doing that. And what you're doing is is it's a form of gaslighting by saying something over and over again and hoping people are going to buy into it.

And it may sound really good, but you're just making absolute statements when when

Anthony's been trying to get you to support where you can get these this knowledge from to make absolute statements.

But even more so, what you're doing is you make the statements and then you'll say everything you're saying is supported.

Well, there's absolutely no support that an ovary is a text or a testicle is an ovary on the inside.

That's not valid. OK, because what is different than what you just said, they're not the same.

They function differently. OK, they're genetically different. So these are the things that, you know, it sounds really good to say that you have support for everything, but you don't and making the claim you do doesn't make it true.

That's and just I know you wanted to you had your finger up to say so. And just making the claim, just you making the claims that you've made, they make them true.

Which claims? That God exists. No, me making the claim doesn't make it true.

It's the reality that, as Anthony was trying to say, if you don't start with it, you can't account for anything.

Or so you say. So no, actually, it's because God said, actually, it's actually let's start out in the right spot.

The standard is not your imagination and Berlinski and everybody else's imagination.

You're giving me a point in time argument. You're giving Anthony a point in time argument. From a person who already presupposes the existence of man without the existence of God.

Which argument did I give you? Which argument? The definition is that you just read off were made during this century.

OK, they were not made six thousand, ten thousand or twenty thousand years ago. They were not made when somebody saw a spontaneous evolution of nothing into everything.

They were nothing into matter, nothing into creation, created life.

They didn't see and see any evidence of a whatever it was that came out of the soup or the ooze or however they want to define it now.

And you're believing this based upon the theory and the thought of men who are speaking today about what they think happened back then.

We're starting from the standpoint of the scripture alone. Now, now you say there's no evidence.

The Bible itself is its own self -contained evidence and it doesn't have a higher source. It doesn't have a higher thought.

It doesn't have anyone that judges the scripture. It's the scripture itself. And the Bible tells us in Romans that the wrath of God is revealed.

It's revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth.

And so hold on, hold on. I've been really quiet and I've tried not to step on anybody's toes for, you know, for 25, 30 minutes.

I've tried to be really quiet. But let me get this expression out so that we have the starting point.

You keep saying there is absolutely no evidence. Well, if you if you throw away all the evidence in history and all the evidence of all the billions of people that have had personal relationships with Jesus Christ from the scripture, according to the spirit, because the

Bible tells us that that we are not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes.

Now, you may not believe it, but that doesn't make it not true. And just because you have a group of people who today can argue and debate and reason from their own philosophical starting point that God can't exist.

So so something else we already have the ground that you must disprove.

You see, the point is, is the God, the universe in Genesis one, he didn't say, oh, will you please believe in me?

He said in the beginning, God. The Bible tells us that God himself in the beginning created everything you have to presuppose and start with God to say there is no

God. I don't have to presuppose there there is atheism to find theism.

You are starting from a position of God exists and I do not believe it.

God claims and I do not believe it. The scripture is the standard that tells us exactly what the foundational truth is.

And there is no other higher authority or foundation. Otherwise, you're just appealing to the reason of a bunch of men who have sat there and argued about different points of of their own evolutionary models that have been debunked and argued against.

And even within the evolutionary field, evolutionists themselves do not always agree.

You'll agree with that, that evolutionists themselves do not agree upon a predominance of agreement on how the evolutionary model should be played out.

You're acting like there's unanimity of thought and there's not. But according to the scripture, we've got fifteen hundred years of people that have written the scripture according to the power of the

Holy Spirit. And these ones, these men wrote a cohesive, unified scripture about one person.

And it was about God himself and his creation, about his son and his redemption plan.

Now, you don't have you don't have that. You have there was a guy in nineteen hundred and eighteen hundred.

He looked back and he saw this and he wrote this. Now, let me ask you this. How many times does the

Bible talk about dinosaurs? Dinosaurs by name,

I don't think at all. Exactly. So you were starting with saying you were starting with saying, let me give you this definition.

Can you find that? No, I can give you the definition of Genesis one. I can give you the definition of John one and Matthew that tells us that that there is a

God and he has been the creator and we have always known it. And the and the definition of Romans that tells us that we are sinners against the holy

God. And that is why we don't want to acknowledge him. OK, so you said a lot there.

I know. I know. Oh, yeah. No, you had you. I'm sure I'm sure you had taken some notes because you were you were quiet for some time and I appreciate that.

I'm sorry if I cut you off in the middle there. No problem. So OK, so the first thing you said was

I want to go back to OK, go ahead. Is that you said you said that you have you have what the

Bible says in the Bible is true. The Bible is the foundation of all truth. I know you disagree with that.

You did last week. Why is the Bible true? Because the scripture has claimed its own self as the standard of truth.

No. And well, that's not the only reason. I mean, it's circular. No, let me answer that.

The Bible is true because its author cannot lie. That's why the Bible is true. OK, so God has never like no

God anywhere has ever said anything. OK, you've got it based on your own presuppositions.

You've got a bunch of people that wrote stuff down based on your presuppositions. No, you got to put stuff down.

You know, you're standing on a bunch of you can't talk over each other. Yeah. You have a bunch of people that wrote stuff down.

Yeah. Right there. There is or people that said, you know, inspiration. One of the things you said was you have all these people who had inspiration or experience with the

Holy Spirit is what you said. You say experience with the Holy Spirit. I think that's what you said. And I I don't want to discount the fact that anyone,

Anthony, Justin, Andrew and anybody watching this may have had some kind of experience.

I would never try to say they didn't have some kind of experience. But to to to any to the person who experiences something, that feeling,

I don't think can ever be. More valid to them. OK, OK, but to everybody else, an anecdote is is worthless because it's because there's no way for me to have any to any way of knowing that your anecdote is actually true in any way, shape or form.

It's just what you felt. OK, but here's the problem with that. Your reasoning that what

I have experienced with the Holy Spirit, by the power of the Holy Spirit, could not be right by your own standard of reasoning.

But you won't apply yourself to the same standard. You're saying that you can't be wrong in your reasoning.

But I have to be wrong not only just in my reasoning, but in the fact that I stand upon the authority, the word of God, who is the consistent arbiter of what is truth.

He is the consistent arbiter. When did I say I couldn't be wrong? You've you've made it clear many times that you you're you're you're standing upon your own reasoning as valid.

Right. But when did I say I couldn't be wrong? If your reasoning is valid, then you can't be wrong. No, I wouldn't even say that.

But you would have to demonstrate in some way that my reasoning is invalid. And this is what I asked of Anthony a few minutes ago.

I said, you know, can you can you give me an example of of this? No, no, no. How do you go ahead?

Go ahead, Anthony. Go ahead. Here's the problem. Everything you're saying is an arbitrary claim because you don't have a standard of truth, nor are you are claiming one that you are listening to is omniscient or the standard of truth.

That's that's really the issue. And so, you know, Pastor Chuck just wrote a little bit ago, something we were going to get into a little bit later anyway.

But is is you keep making your own your own senses and reality.

OK, so my senses say that the reality is God exists. How can you falsify my reality by my senses that God exists by his creation and things that have been made?

The null hypothesis is virtually impossible to falsify, but but it's the individual who's making the claim.

That has to show that has to shoulder the burden of proof last week, last week when when I think it was

Anthony, pardon me, Andrew, towards the end of it said, you know, I want to talk to you about, you know, why, why do you you know, why do you say that the

Christian God doesn't exist and say I'm convinced the Christian doesn't exist because and I gave my three reasons, OK, and like I gave the reasons why

I am convinced I and all of those things can be falsified.

And what you said a minute ago is that I sit upon this arbitrary standard. And while while you may have a point in saying

I sit on an arbitrary standard, you sit on an undemonstrated one. Because because simply stating

X is isn't proof that X is the Bible, the

Bible is the claim, the Bible is not the evidence for the claim. But Michael, I think that you're projecting.

How is that? Because you just described to Anthony what we've been saying you're doing.

You're making claims and just by virtue of the claim, it's true. And whenever Anthony asked you for evidence, you try to turn it on him to put to put the burden of proof back on him.

And, you know, and you can you can go back and listen. But you've asked Anthony several times.

You don't like his answer. And then you say he isn't actually supporting it. But the reality is, every time you're asked to support things you haven't given the support, you change a topic.

That's a red herring. What have I said that isn't falsifiable? Well, we have

I would say some of the things are falsifiable and we've shown that. And therein therein is the difference.

No, it isn't. I'll give one thing that I'd like you to prove and show the false falsifiability of it, that all things that are true are falsifiable.

All things are true are falsifiable. That's your argument. So your claim that and we're somehow wrong because we're saying that it's not falsifiable in your argument.

Well, you need to first prove that statement that you said. So what

I would say is, and I went back to this before when I asked Anthony what his definition of truth was. My definition of truth is that which comports with reality, a correspondence theory, we call it.

If we can, if we can show that it's, that it's true, then it's true.

Otherwise you can just say anything is true, like God exists. And then all of a sudden say, and you have to falsify that this

God exists. No, if, if the claim God exists is valid, then, then a, then a

Muslim apologist is just as firm in saying Allah is the true God. A Hindu apologist is just as firm in saying

Brahman, Vishnu and Ganesh are true. And all of the, all of the, every other God that's ever been proposed.

Okay. It is, I met my burden of proof last week when

I said, these are the reasons why I am convinced every single solitary thing that I said is falsifiable.

Yeah, but see here, here's the category area that you're making again, another logical fallacy. You want to talk falsifiability, which is in the realm of science and you're, you've left the realm of science and are in the realm of philosophy.

And so your falsifiability doesn't work. You're in the wrong, you're in the wrong area.

Okay. So you're, if you're going to argue philosophically, then you need to stick to the philosophical arguments like logic, which you've broken several times.

So, so you, you're right. Your views are falsifiable and they've been proven false, yet you still hold to them.

And the reason is, is because it's not an evidence issue. I can give you evidence all day. You have a spiritual issue.

It's, it's not an evidence issue. Which of the things that I've talked about, actually, first, I want to ask this question first,

Anthony, can you prove the existence of God scientifically? I had a rare, yeah.

That's is science is no, no, no. I, I'm asking the question for a reason. Yeah. No, the answer is that Anthony, do you think there's scientific evidence for God?

That is again, a category error. No, but I'm asking you, do you think, does Anthony think there is scientific evidence for God?

You use science in a bunch of arguments. It's a super simple question. But that's not, it's a tad dishonest and not giving you a direct answer.

There's a difference. Hold on. There's a difference. Can Anthony or I, or anyone use science to support our position?

Okay. The, the, the starting point, God exists. Can we then see the science works in our worldview?

Yes. Okay. So what you said a minute ago, but no, no, I'm going to be really clear on this.

Okay. Sure. Anthony was to prove God exists using science. Science is a study of the natural world.

God is outside of nature. We dealt with this last week. God, by definition, if he created nature, he's outside of it.

And so he's supernatural. You could never use science to prove the, the, to, to prove the supernatural.

It is, it is as silly of a question. And I know you don't think it's silly, but it's as silly of a question as me saying to you, how many feet does eight gallons of water weigh?

Okay. So you just said something super interesting there. You just said something super interesting there.

You said that science can never demonstrate the supernatural. So how did you figure out it was real?

Well, it's a philosophical argument first off, and that's why you don't use the study of the natural world to prove the supernatural.

And again, the issue is not, does the natural world that God created support what he has said?

Yes, it does, because he created it. However, that isn't asking the question, does it prove he exists?

That's what you asked Anthony. Can you use science to prove God exists? The answer to that is that the question is a category error.

It's illogical. It's it is exactly God is supernatural because it's the wrong, it's, it would be the wrong measurement.

It's like God's supernatural. You can't study the supernatural from the study of the natural is

God's supernatural. Yes. And how did you determine it was real? God is outside because, well, because God has revealed that to every human being, including yourself.

It's just, you suppress that. And the fact is, is that the reason why we can have a conversation right now and use our ability to reason, use laws of logic, things that can't be, can't be accounted for in a materialistic worldview is, is what shows

God exists. We can't do these things without God. Sure. We can. That's where the story we are.

Yeah. Without God, except that you don't account, you can't account for it in your worldview.

So you're doing the same thing I'm, or you're attempting to do the same thing I'm doing and using laws of logic and your ability to reason, except that you can't account for them in your materialistic worldview.

So you're borrowing from my worldview. And you're undem, you're undemonstrated one. Yes, sure.

No, it's okay. So it's completely undem. If you could demonstrate it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. To stop the gaslighting.

Yeah, it's, it's absolutely true. It is absolutely true. You are appealing to an undemonstrated standard.

You're saying you have this standard, but you can't even show that the standard exists. We, we, it's, we've, Anthony has shown that to you several times.

You, you reject it. That doesn't mean it's not demonstrated. It means that you're rejecting the evidence being provided.

That is, you're saying it's absolute making an absolute claim again, without being able to account for it.

And yet the interesting thing I find is that you're, you're going, oh, well, this is absolute.

And if it was, if it was so absolute, why do you have to reject everything Anthony saying?

We should probably say Matt's quote up. I'd say, yes, there, so Matt Slick, I'd say, yes, there's scientific evidence for God.

Well, one thing we want to make sure is really clear for the audience is that on one hand,

Michael asked me to prove God exists by science. That you can't do. That's a category error. Is there scientific evidence that, that, um, supports what we understand in this world, which would point to God?

Of course there is. We, we have all kinds of evidence and that's exactly what God is saying in Romans one is that by his creation and the things that have been made, everybody knows he exists.

Psalm 19 does the same thing. Uh, Romans two does the same thing that by his con by our conscience law written in our hearts, that testifies to his existence.

Granted, granted, that's not science, but, um, being a moral argument, but the issue is, yes, there is plenty of scientific evidence.

There's plenty of just evidence in the creation realm out here that's, that points to God so much so that God is convinced enough that you're without excuse.

So like, well, where do you, where do you want to start everything in creation?

Yeah. Everything in creation. Let's go back to what we talked about last week. So what if we, so what if we don't call it, what if we don't call it creation instead, what if we call it reality?

Well, we, we already dealt with this last week when you said that people could be biologically a male and everything in the biology, everything in them should be male, but you think that they can identify as something outside of their biology, which right there requires them to have something other than biology.

Well, I think what I said, well, I think what I actually said was, is that I don't care how people identify. Yeah. But you did say that the, when

I asked you the question of if someone is biologically, I might have, I don't remember, you could be right.

Yeah. So, so the, the issue there though is there is an immaterial part of us that you can't account for.

And you, you said, you don't, you just don't believe it exists. You can't prove that.

I mean, maybe you could falsify that argument, falsify the fact that you don't have an immaterial part of you.

So you're referring to a soul? Yeah. The immaterial part.

Some people might call it a soul, a spirit, but I'm just, yeah, the reason, sorry,

Anthony, go ahead. No, information is part of that as well. That's part of the immaterial that is there in you.

Information. What do you mean? Information in general, um, for you to, to know things, how it's even stored in you is, is immaterial.

You know, there, there's that, there's that classic example. You can take two DVDs, one that's blank, one that has information on it and they weigh the exact same information.

Doesn't have weight to it. And yet this, this immaterial thing is a thing again, can't be accounted for in an immaterial worldview.

So, so yeah, I mean, Andrew's talking about, there's actually, sorry, there's actually a way to do a quick correction.

Anthony probably didn't. Anthony said you can't account for it in an immaterial worldview. He meant a material worldview.

Thank you. Yeah. There's actually, um, uh, a study that I found out about through another, um,

YouTube atheists where they actually showed images to different animals.

Other, I think it was other primates. And then they, uh, then they took that animal and they euthanized it and they took the brain of it out and they use an

FMRI machine. And they, they took sections of the brain and took the sections of the brain and actually blotted it onto pieces of paper.

And the image itself of what the animal was shown was on the paper. Um, I haven't,

I have, uh, I'm offering, I'm not offering that as, as, as a, as a refutation for what you just said.

Cause I only just heard about this or so a week or so ago, but when you said, oh, you can't show evidence of this, it was reminding me of that.

So I have to look more into it and we can talk about it another time if you want. We're also getting into, we're also getting into another realm where I am not a biologist.

Like I said before, I only play one on TV. So there's, we're, we're going to get into these areas where all you're going to hear me say a lot of is,

I don't know. Um, just before you say next point, I just saw a comment a minute or so ago from, from Matt Slick.

Um, and yeah, I'd be happy to have a conversation with him, although I'm curious as to why he wants to have a conversation with me now, because, uh,

I reached out to him through Tim Hurd, Bible Flaming Wignut a number of years ago and, uh, didn't get the time of day.

So, uh, but, but I'd be happy to have a conversation. Because you would have had to get ahold of me, but yeah, but we could set that up easy.

Sure. Yeah. He didn't know that you were bald and, and because when, when people have hair, it intimidates him.

So he, he doesn't like to have them debate. I'm just kidding. He's, he's a great guy.

So I think you'll have a good time with him. We can have Matt on this show either tonight or another week.

And yeah, just like, uh, to, to be fair, to be fair to everybody. Um, I've probably only got about 30 minutes or so.

Uh, cause last week damn near killed me when my alarm went off. So really, and I spent a long time here last, uh, last week.

So I've only got about another half an hour. So that is your own doing for talking to Justin for 45 minutes after the show ended.

Now, in fairness, in fairness, um, in, even in hindsight, I wouldn't have changed that because it was such a good conversation.

I agree. I wouldn't, I wouldn't change that. You know, brother. Um, and I call you brother just because it's, it's, uh, it's an axiom.

Oh no, I know. I, I take it. I take to it kindly. We're, we're, we're all brothers. Yeah. Um, yeah, we're all made in the image of God.

Yeah. We're all made in the image of God. It's, it's amazing. Uh, and here's what I want to, want to talk about just for a second.

And as Anthony, let's clarify something though. We're not all brothers and sisters or brothers in Christ. Yeah.

We're in Christ. We are cousins from Adam and Eve because we are all from Adam and Eve.

Just want to make clear. And the thing is, and the thing is, and I know you're going to say, well, no, we're not, but you have to, you have to say that we all started somewhere.

And, and in your case, since you've denied God and you've denied Adam and Eve, you're appealing that there was a first man and woman, right?

Uh, no, no, there was never. There was never a, there was never a man. I'm asking.

Cause this is, this was news to the best, to the best of my knowledge, there were never two first homo sapiens because, um, individuals don't evolve populations do.

So, and I know like you guys aren't going to accept this and that's, and that's fine, but I'd ask you to humor me a little bit, cause

I've, I've tried to take in the things that you guys have asserted. Um, populations, uh, evolve.

So, you know, there were, there were populations of other primates. Like, so, so we didn't evolve from apes.

We are apes and we share a common ancestor populations evolve. So there were never saying there were two first homo sapiens is like saying there were two first fish.

So I want to go down that path with them a little bit more.

So at some point, right, you would have had to have a asexual creature that starts to have bisexual.

In other words, you have a creature that is not male or female. It doesn't need, you know, it can reproduce without a male and female.

And then at some point you, you have an evolutionary process where you start having male parts and female parts.

Correct. Yeah. We're starting to branch into the area of biology that I make nerd in. Okay. But because,

I mean, for, for kind of, I mean, and they're secular evolutionists do hold to what they call a mitochondria

Adam and a mitochondria Eve. Okay. I've heard those. I've heard those terms.

I think Eve, I forget which, I think it's Eve that's 60 ,000 years before Adam. And part of the argument

I always make with that is either she's really old or. She would have died and there was no reproducing.

And that's the problem that we have when we go from asexual to bisexual. You, you have to have,

I mean, run the math on this and figure out how impossible it is to believe. And, and that it's, it takes greater blind faith to be an atheist than to be a

Christian for these reasons. You have to have a creature that not only ends up through evolution, gaining the parts to be male and it has, and they're all there.

It can't be some of them. This is what he referred to as irreducible complexity.

They have to be all their income in their completion and the female parts in the counterpart at the same time in history, at the same location.

And they have to know how to, how to use those parts. All of that is astronomically impossible, but yet it's required for evolution to be true.

So I read a short paper on Beehe's arguments and how they were disproven.

But I'm not the person to do it. So again, like I said before, maybe it's prophetic. We're going to enter into a bunch of into an area where a lot of my answers are going to be,

I don't know. But, and this whole, I'm sure this will get, get

Matt's back up a little bit. But, if, if you can probably go to Matt Slick's channel and watch a little conversation he had with Aaron Raw, where all this was really, really clearly explained to him, and he could explain it a lot better than I could.

Justin, I'm not sure. I think you asked me, asked me a question. I don't think I answered it. But, but, but think about it.

What we're, what's going on here is we're, we're talking about, blind faith. You're saying, I don't know, but I believe it.

I don't know, you know, this process of the evolutionary model and, and the makeup of it, but some guy said this.

And so I believe that over God. So that's a gross oversimplification. So what I would say is we have, we have the, the unbelievably overwhelming astronomically concise consensus of scientists.

Okay. From multiple disciplines. Okay. Not just, not just, you know, evolutionists.

Okay. We have biologists, chemists, geologists, geneticists, people who study phylogenetics, all these other things.

And all of them independently all converge on the same conclusions. Okay. So this isn't just six guys sitting around a table going, how can we, how can we talk about this

God not existing? No. It's, it's, it's thousands upon thousands upon thousands of scientists over, upon over hundreds of years that all come to the same conclusions.

And while I may not understand it all, I do. Yes, you're, you're, you're right. And that I do have a degree of faith, trust, whatever you want to call it.

Okay. In, in what they're saying is true. When I compare it to the blank page that I get, when

I ask for a demonstration. Hold on, Justin. I just want to point out again, another logical fallacy and appeal to population.

Yeah. Okay. No, no, no. It's, it's, it's, that's, that's not a fallacy. It's not because so I've, I've heard it called,

I've, I've heard it called an appeal to population. I've also heard it called an appeal to authority. And the problem is, is that, is it, is it, it's no, it's, it's not an appeal to authority fallacy is only a fallacy when the people you're appealing to are not authorities.

Okay. If they are actual experts in the field, then all that's doing is citing an expert. That's not your argument.

Yes. That's precisely what I said. Your argument is the, the number of them, the astronomical number for hundreds of years, which of experts and the experts, the hundreds of thousands of experts.

Yeah. So it's, it's the, it's the number. So you're doing, this is why I'm saying you're doing both an appeal to authority and you're doing an appeal to, to population.

The appeal to authority, because you're saying they're an authority in a, in this range of study, but that right there, hold on that right there rejects it because the only ones that would matter is the, the study in the realm that they're in.

And so the, the thing is, is that you can have a large number of people that believe the same thing and still be wrong.

Yeah. I see that a lot with religious people. Well, let me, let me ask a question on this. See, there you go.

You're projecting again, but go ahead. Yeah. Well, I'm going to say you just you've, you've complained many times in the past, you know, last

Thursday and today about the fact that we're oversimplifying and yet, and yet, and, and what you're saying is, is, oh, we've got many people, hundreds of people, or dozens of people or whatever that are in these different fields and they're saying all this, all this stuff, and yet you're presupposing that none of them has an ulterior motive and that every one of them is such an expert in their field that is either unquestionable or you haven't done the research yourself to see that what they're saying is scientifically valid.

You're just believing it out of faith and you're not appealing to an actual sense of, of understanding and reason and logic that you've tested on your own.

That is the definition of blind faith. So I don't have the capacity to test the same way all these other scientists do.

Then you fail scientifically. Could there, could there be bad faith actors, uh, within the scientific community that could, there could be.

Uh, I don't, I don't know that there are, and I don't know, but I don't, I don't know that there aren't, I have a hard time believing why they would, because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I don't,

I don't say that it couldn't be, um, just as there are bad faith actors within the, within the, the faithful community, you know, lots of them.

So, uh, okay. A couple of things. Number one, this, this, I agree with Andrew completely.

This is a, uh, it's a logical fallacy going to the, to the populace. Having said that let's, we can demonstrate many issues in the scientific world where the great majority of scientists had a consensus consensus on things until they were proven wrong.

One of the great, one of the great ones in the medical field as a dentist, I enjoy these types of things 25 to 30 years ago there up until about 25, 30 years ago, it was assumed by nearly every doctor in the world that ulcers in the stomach were caused by too much acid and that there were foods in different conditions that caused that.

That was, that was the, that was the thing that nearly everybody believed. One scientist thought outside the box and discovered the

H pylori bacteria that caused the vast majority of ulcers. Now a simple antibiotic clears that up for almost everybody.

This is just one of many, many things in the scientific realm that has been shown that the populace was wrong and they, and they were wrong after thinking they were right for decades.

Now, and there's a reason why, because we look at what is science and this is what I was trying to get you to answer last week, a little bit earlier today, and we kind of got off topic, but science, science is not a

God. First of all, for us to do science, I want to establish again for the audience, for us to be able to do science, we have to be able to trust our, our senses and have, and that can account for them.

We have to be able to, to trust our ability to reason and account for it. The ability to have knowledge, truth, and so on, and an ability to account for that, which it can only be accounted for in the worldview, the

Christian worldview where we have an omniscient God. Having said that, science cannot be

God. Science cannot replace those things. And, and, and so, so you're, you want to beg on, on your, on what you say is reality based on what your senses are telling you is reality, and yet you are not omniscient yourself, nor are you begging onto one that is omniscient.

That's a problem. We go back to the scientific methods. So guys who are using, who are doing science has to be, they have to be using scientific method.

Again, I'm going to say you cannot do science without God's first. However, scientific method says this, we make an observation, we define purpose.

We construct a hypothesis. We test the hypothesis, collect data. We analyze data, we draw a conclusion, and then we communicate results.

This, this is where the idea of being falsifiable comes in. The problem is, is that in, in this type of, in this type of realm of science, you can always prove something wrong as more knowledge becomes available as time goes on, this, this is what science is right now for us.

So I, I just, I just want to make sure we have a correct understanding of all this stuff.

Oh, we have a clear understanding. And, and, but the one thing, you know, and you keep on going back to this and the one thing

I'm going to keep going back to, and I'm, I'll just wait for Andrew to pop in here a second, tell them gasoline again, is that all of these things you're doing, you're appealing to this completely undemonstrated standard, but you know what?

I just had a revelation. I just had a revelation and I can now do all of the things that you're saying.

Um, and it's because a law has revealed himself to me. So you've abandoned atheism and you're now, uh, yeah, you changed your entire worldview now.

Yeah, completely. Um, and, and I, and I'd like for you to falsify that for me. Well, okay.

So you fall because I now have this. No, I know I have an absolute standard that I'm appealing to. Oh, that's okay. But wait a second.

Well, okay, but so you've now falsified your entire argument today and your entire argument last week.

So all of a sudden now you've admitted you were wrong. Good. I'm glad. Because I, because now I have this, now

I have this objective standard that I'm appealing to and, and I know that you're wrong and I'm right.

Good. So, so now that you've admitted you were wrong up until this point, and that's good,

I'm glad now we can, now we can go after the claims where you say that you are now

Muslim, we're Christian. Now we can actually talk within, within a realm. We can now know what

I need you to do now is falsify my position. Yeah. So, well, now we've allowed the supernatural to come into play.

So, so that's, so now in, in your worldview, you can at least pretend to believe that you have an ability to reason and so on and so forth.

Okay, good. Now, now we walk into a different realm is that Muslims have inconsistencies all over their teachings.

Oh, no, what's been, what's been revealed to me. Is, is, uh, is, is, is completely infallible.

Okay. So, so we could, we could test that, right? You want the falsify ability.

Could you define the Trinity for me? Oh, no, the Trinity doesn't exist.

It's only a lie. Yeah, I know. But the Christian, Christian view, what is the Christian view? It would be, it would be blasphemous for me to do such a thing.

What? No, because the Quran does define it. So it couldn't be. So what is the definition that Christians use?

I mean, I mean, under, under the revelation that I've had. Yeah. So what, what's the Christian view of the

Trinity? Is it the father, the son, and the Holy spirit? I've heard. That's what it is. Yeah. Okay. In the Quran, it's the father, the mother, and the son.

So the writer of the Quran, if he's God should know the

Christian definition, don't you think? Yeah, maybe. Okay. So that would be an error.

That's not a, uh, something where it's, it's in a definitional one.

Okay. So now, now you have a different issue because now you you've just, you've not only given up your atheism, but now you've, you've jumped into something that is falsifiable again, and you've been proven false twice.

Well, no, I don't think so. And of course, you know, that I didn't accept Islam. Um, but yeah, but the whole thing, the whole thing is, is that, is that it's, it's, it's not, it's not falsifiable because we, you know, we talked before about, you know, revelation and all these, all these other things.

I just falsified it. Well, I, um, see, this is the thing.

And then I think what you need to do is you need to be, you need to get good exposure to, to the

Islamic community, let them know that you falsified their worldview, which was super interesting is how you were able to do that without demonstrating that your

God exists. So, so that wasn't the issue that they see. This is the whole thing. And I have,

I actually have a video. If you go to the, your YouTube channel called, you know, refuting Islam in three minutes,

I did it with a, with a Muslim. And I explained how doing exactly that it's, it's easy to falsify that in using proper terms.

But here's the thing. This is why I keep saying it's gaslighting because you keep saying we are never doing what we keep doing over and over and over again, and then you would just reject it.

You say I didn't falsify Islam. I just did. And what I asked you for, what

I asked you for was an objectively verifiable demonstration, something that anyone can do to come to the same conclusion and, and you haven't been able to offer me that you talked about the

Bible a bunch and stuff like that, but you've never been able to offer me something that I can do. And we talked about when

I, when I questioned Anthony about any possible scientific evidence and, and I, and I did, I did misspeak and I said, can you prove scientifically?

And I shouldn't have said that. What I should have said was there is scientific evidence. That's what I meant to say. And I misspoke. And, you know, and then, and then you say, well, that's a category or because it's philosophical.

I'll say, well, is it God's supernatural? Well, yeah, it's supernatural. Can we demonstrate the supernatural? Oh, we can't do that. That's it. That's a category area.

You keep on going back and forth to, to get around, to get around the fact, to get around the fact, we're not getting around the fact that what you have is faith, not knowledge.

No, what we said last week, that's you, you're projecting again. What we said last week and this week is you can't account for the immaterial part of us that you, you have to acknowledge exists.

You don't want to, but you're stuck because you, you say that people can identify outside of their biology.

Once you said that you can't account for that. You, but you, you would say these things are absolute.

You don't even attempt to, to support it. You just changed topics, a red herring argument to then jump onto to another thing.

My inability to explain the differences for someone who's transgender versus someone who's cisgender is an evidence for anything that you're claiming.

It's outside of biology. It's not a biological issue because biologically they're male or female.

I think the medical field disagrees with you. No, they don't. They don't show evidence.

Yeah. They need a psychiatrist, not a medical doctor. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think that that's a,

I think we're starting to dance into a different issue now. And I, well, the point being is you reject, you say, give me a, give me something that I can objectively look at.

We do that. And you just go, you haven't done it. Hang on. What, what have you given me that I can objectively look at?

We've given you the fact that there's the, an immaterial world. There's a supernatural world. We went through last week. Are you demonstrated those things?

Yeah. We demonstrated last week that both logically and using the laws of science, that the only way to explain the universe is that there had to have been someone or something to create it.

Okay. That was both logically and scientifically consistent. That right there shows that there's something that's supernatural, which you deny because whatever creates the natural world has to be outside of it.

That is a logically valid argument. Okay. I'm not appealing to illogical statements as you have.

And that's going to be the difference. What I really, I encourage you, Michael, let's check it out is look at how much you you're gaslighting, you're projecting, you're doing appeal to popular appeal to authority.

All of these are invalidate your argument. So I can objectively look at your arguments and prove they're false.

You have yet to do that with ours because what you've done each time is to redefine things to have to, you know, say, oh, you're stuck here or just flat out, ignore everything that we say to you.

And, and my, my concern, and you know, this because we, I said this both on air last week and off air last week.

My greatest concern is the fact that a second after you die, Michael, it doesn't matter what you believe on this earth or all the, all the stuff you want to say.

You want to argue God doesn't exist. You have a knowledge of God. You are accountable.

And, and the fact is you have more knowledge of God than other than many other people.

Okay. Because I know you've, you've, you've read it. You debate these things. You have more that you're going to be held accountable to.

And that makes me fear even more for your soul. I do not want to see you spend eternity in a lake of fire rightly.

You and I would both, and we, you know, we talked about this, I think, but you and I both would deserve eternity in a lake of fire because we're both guilty by God's standard.

You don't believe there's a God that doesn't change it. Not believing in gravity is not going to mean that I walk off a building in a float.

Okay. My belief doesn't make it true. You know what the big difference is there? Hmm. You know what the big difference between what you just said is there?

Sure. We can, we can measure and demonstrate gravity. Yeah. And we've already shown you ways that you can see evidence that comport purports to the knowledge of God.

The circular reasoning you offer from the Bible. No, no, I get it. It's just, it's clearly unconvincing. I did not.

Okay. Again, I never gave you anything that you could show was circular reasoning. I did show you in two of your arguments that it was circular.

Okay. So if you have an issue with circular reasoning, then your worldview is a problem. Okay. I didn't appeal to circular reasoning.

Okay. But the thing is, is that Michael, I know that you grew up in a home where you had, by your own admission, this isn't me insulting you.

Okay. For people who didn't listen, yeah. Well, I just don't want anyone to think that I'm insulting you if they didn't hear last week, but you admitted, you were raised in a nominal

Christian home, but Catholic and Lutheran, you read the Bible, you know, at least completely through once some parts more than once.

Okay. You have a knowledge of what the Bible teaches. And my concern is where you're going to spend eternity.

That's my greatest concern for you. We could sit. I'm not at all concerned about that. I, we can, we can enjoy the conversation we're having.

It is, it's good. It's educational. It's enjoyable, but my concern is where you spend eternity.

And I know that now you're saying you're not concerned about it. I'm really not. After you die, it's, it's, you're going to be concerned about it.

Okay. And. Sorry, I'm just distracted by the other person who popped into the studio. I keep on looking, he's kind of walking around.

I'm getting distracted. We call him the cluck commander. Is that his name? Yeah. Like two weeks ago and guys on the air.

Sorry. Anyway, guys, I hate to, I hate to dash out on you, but this does. Question for, for Michael.

You know what? I don't want to keep him any longer than he did. If he needs to go, he needs to go. So it's, it's okay.

I can, I can, I can, I can humor you with one question. Oh, well,

I was going to say, are you open to a thought experiment? Sure.

Fire away. Okay. Thought experiment. Okay. Just a simple little thing. Would, uh,

God, uh, God in the flesh coming down would be ample evidence for you. How would

I know that it was God? Uh, he does something to, uh, satisfy your, your, uh, your demands.

Have you ever heard the, uh, this, the saying any sufficiently sophisticated technologies indistinguishable from magic?

So how would I know it was God? And we're not an alien. Okay. Well, for the sake of your, for the sake of your, your experiment.

Sure. I pray for something and I get it. Sure. Okay. Okay. So here we go.

So you're convinced that God in flesh, he shows up, he goes by the name of Jesus. Sure.

And he goes, Hey, I, he convinced you that he exists. He's a reality. Then he goes to you now go and make disciples and to all the world.

Sure. How are you going to do that now? I'm not sure. Well, I'd probably ask him for some help.

Um, yeah, I probably, I'd probably ask him for help. And he says, uh, I will send you my spirit. I will send you my

Holy spirit to help you. Okay. I'd probably say something like, I'm going to need more than that because, um, you're like, no, look, uh, you know,

I, I convinced you now go and make disciples according to what my word teaches.

I guess that's it. I guess, I guess I'd say I try and I do my best. Okay. But do you see my point though, is that the thought experiment that I gave you is the exact same situation that us

Christians are in that these disciples back in, you know, uh, thousands of years ago, got the evidence, saw a man get crucified and come back from the dead after he predicted it, he prophesied it.

And then he tells them to go and make disciples. Well, so, so the

Bible says, but I don't, I don't, and I guess you didn't hear the conversation last week, but I don't see the Bible as well. I heard it more than the

Bible. Okay. If you're going to, if you want to reject that Jesus rose from the dead, you have to reject the historians of the time.

You have to reject the Jewish leaders at the time. Which historians? Uh, well, you can go to Josephus.

Was Josephus a contemporary? Cause I'm pretty sure he didn't write antiquities of the

Jews to like the nineties and he wasn't born until the mid thirties. So it would have been after this. Yeah, I, I, so the last thing

I'll say, and then I kind of do have to go. So, um, I, I dance around, I will,

I'll give you this. I'm agnostic on the Jesus position. Um, do

I think there was a historical figure named Jesus? Yeah, probably. Uh, was he the son of God?

No. Um, but it, it, and it, and it doesn't, it doesn't matter whether or not he was a real person who walked around and, uh, and, and talked about stuff.

Cause apocalyptic preachers in first century Judea were a dime a dozen. Um, but it's, it's, it's the supernatural claims that we can be pretty sure it didn't happen.

And so, um, these accounts, whether it be

Tacitus, Josephus, these people were not contemporaries. Um, the earliest accounts we have are decades after the supposed events.

Uh, we don't have a single solitary eyewitness. Um, and like, this is just, this is just a history and I've gotten this from other people like, uh,

Richard Carrier, Robert Price. Um, I mean, even guys like Bart Ehrman doesn't, doesn't, doesn't.

I'm just curious, the guys you mentioned, what year were they born? Well, okay.

So we have the capacity. We do have the capacity to look at history somewhere in the 20th century. You're rejecting a historian within the same century and accepting a historian 2000 years later.

So you said he was, you said he was an eyewitness. You said he was, I said, he,

I said the historian and I refer to the Jewish leaders who wrote it in the Talmud. Have you read the

Talmud? No, I haven't. Well, the Talmud speaks about Jesus being raised, raising from the dead.

Okay. Now they're not looking to promote Jesus. So the fact is you've, I said you had to reject the

Jewish leaders of the time and the historians. So you have Josephus, you have Philo, you have others that were writing for Rome that weren't trying to prove

Christianity. You also have the Bible itself, the eyewitnesses who wrote the Bible. You wanted the eyewitnesses.

Your whole argument is you reject them. Even though people, you know, go get, you know,

J. Warren Wallace's book on, um, cold case Christianity. He's, he's, that's in his area of expertise.

He's a cold case detective that, that researches, you know, basically cases that have murder cases that have gone cold, his expertise area, his area of 20 years where he's the, he's one of the leading experts is eyewitness testimony, identifying good eyewitness testimony.

He came to the Bible looking to prove it wrong by what his area of expertise was.

He ended up showing that the Bible is valid eyewitness testimony by all the standards for identifying what a good eyewitness would be.

And so I challenge you to get his book and check that out because. Have you read, have you read a case against the case for Christ?

No, I haven't. I didn't even hear about it. But, uh, Robert Price, he, uh, it's, it's, it's kind of, uh, uh, poking fun at least durables monstrosity.

Um, that's, I mean, that's all that a lot of atheists can do is, is they poke fun because poking fun, poking fun in the title.

I mean, he can be dismayed. He completely dismantles it. Um, but anyway, it's now, yeah, it's past time.

I got to go. Um, guys, once again, I've, I've like super enjoyed this conversation. Um, I know it was a little bit, um, tougher, uh, this week, but hopefully

I didn't, uh, take you guys off too much. Um, no, no, no. You didn't get Anthony.

I go in New York city and, and, and send this, Hey, we can set up. I'll talk to Matt this week.

If you're interested, I'll, you know, if you want, if you guys want, we'll set up a time for the two of you to have the full two hours if you want, or if you can only do an hour and a half next week, next week, uh,

I'm away, but, uh, I think Anthony may have some scheduled for next week, but we'll see now.

Oh, it's a week after. Okay. But, uh, but I definitely, uh, enjoyed your time. Well, uh,

I would love to get. Uh, any or all of you for a round table with my podcast partner, but I should mention

Dean. Um, he's got young kids and they ruin everything, which is why he's usually not here for stuff like this.

Um, into a kind of a round table discussion or something like that. I think it would be great. Uh, thanks to all of your, uh, listeners for not tossing up too many hateful, uh, little chat things.

Um, and, uh, and, uh, Matt, if you're still watching, I look forward to the conversation. And, uh, yeah,

I'll just say that our listeners are, I think way nicer than say

Schuyler fictions are to me. Oh, really? I thought that conversation was actually pretty decent.

I know the conversation was his, his, his, uh, followers in their comments is what

I'm saying. But then again, it's what I say is, you know, insult is all they have. So, cause they don't have good arguments, but Hey, yeah, we'll, we'll look for,

I appreciate the conversation and, uh, yeah, maybe we should have recorded your conversation with Justin when

Anthony and I left where you guys just recreated it again. Yeah, we can totally do it again.

We'll definitely do it again. What I think would be, what I think would be good. Um, uh, a fun thing to talk about is, uh, is morality.

So maybe, uh, maybe next time we can dive into that a little bit. Cause I always have fun with that. Just like, yeah, as an atheist,

I have an objective standard for morality. I'll just leave you with that completely objective.

I'll leave you with that. I'll leave you with that little tip. You piqued my interest. So you too.

Yeah, guys. Cheers. Um, stay, uh, stay safe down there. And if I didn't hear your conversation, but you should definitely wear masks.

Uh, if you're not definitely wear masks, I don't have my mask. Well, not, not when you're in your house, just when you're in public.

There you go. That's not the same thing though. Anyway, guys, cheers. Take care. Thanks again so much.

And we will, uh, we will chat soon. All right. So with, with that conversation.

So with the 20 minutes we have left, let me, let me ask you guys. I mean, I, I, you know, because we, we do this show because we want to teach people how to do apologetics, how do

I recognize things throughout, throughout the show, uh, Anthony, you were, you know, talking with Michael and there were times

I did, you know, jump in for purpose, right. To point out for you guys who are watching or listening,

I want you to see what it is people do to a point where Michael even admitted,

Andrew's going to jump in and say that I'm gaslighting, right? So it's like, he knows exactly what he's doing.

Um, you know, I walked away last week. Uh, he didn't do it. He only did it, I think once or twice this week, but I walked away last week with the amazement of, and I talked to you guys about this.

He was making absolute statements. And then when you pressure him to support the statements,

I'm not an expert. I don't know. I could be wrong. And yet makes the absolute statements.

Now he made even stronger, absolute statements today, but he didn't, it was only when we get into the area of biology that he would back away and yet he'd make absolute biological statements that apes are humans.

I find that interesting. And this is the thing you got to recognize with people, folks is when, when people are doing what he was doing, notice it where he's, he's jumping around every time

Anthony asked him for support. What did he do? He, he would turn. And this is my encouragement to you guys.

When you're doing apologetics, do not fall for the trap of a red herring.

So what is a red herring? A red herring argument is one where someone will change a topic for the purpose of avoiding having to answer.

And he was doing that over and over again with Anthony. And when you have someone that does that to you, the thing to do is to just say, you know what,

I will answer that after you give me the support, after you answer my question, right?

Because the whole reason they're doing it is because they feel that burden of proof that they can't support.

That's why people do a red herring. And so when you see that, recognize it and realize you got the person on the ropes and every time they're, they're trying to put the burden of proof back on you, it's because they know they don't have answers.

So that's where you strike, right? I mean, in a sense, not, you know, but it's, it's the point of that tells you where they don't have answers.

Exactly. Well, I mean, the bottom line is the entire time he kept saying, he kept making truth claims, kept making factual claims, same thing, right?

About the same thing. And, and, and he's kept trying to make me justify my position, right?

Even though we can account for, and that's the whole issue is we can account for a positions, we can account for our ability to have truth and facts.

He couldn't, he either couldn't understand, or he was refusing to, to answer the questions about his eating to account for that.

I mean, you can't just, you can't just say you can't make arbitrary claims. You have to have, you have to have ultimate standards as an axiom.

Otherwise arbitrary world to begin with. And so it was, it was, for me, it was unbelievably frustrating listening to him because I, and I couldn't tell again, he was, he was either being really dishonest or he just is parroting other people.

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Well, let's look at some things. Some things he made were absolute claims.

And I would, I'd encourage people to go back, re -listen to this. Now that you hear this, go back and listen and, and see whether I'm right or wrong on this, because I didn't hear him supporting some of the things he made as absolute statements.

He claimed that the last week, the Christian God, other God might exist, but the

Christian God cannot exist. His, he only support he gave was subjective. What he believed, he couldn't give anything objective as, as the standard he wants for us.

So he gave no objective standard that the Christian God cannot exist. It's just, he doesn't like that God.

Well, that doesn't, yeah. Angie, we couldn't comprehend what he was saying either, but it doesn't.

And so you got to stop answering questions that you don't read. Angie H says, see, you all make sense, but for some reason

I can't comprehend what he's saying. And, and the reason Angie that it's hard to comprehend is kind of be almost,

I don't want to, I'm trying not to use an absolute type of statement, but most likely the reason is, is he's playing, he's, he's playing word games.

You know, he, he's in, he is in full control of what he's saying. He's, if you, if you end up listening to his podcast, you'll know that his demeanor with us, it changed from last week to this week, but his demeanor on his own show is a very different one from when he's on here.

Okay. So right off the bat, you, you see that he is in control.

You, you see that he's willing to play games with, Oh, well now I'm a Muslim. I got revelation. Right. And so we said, okay, right.

Anthony just went with that. Yep. It's, it's a game to him. And, and, and this, for you guys who are listening, watching, uh, you know, that should break your heart like it does mine.

I hope that the, here's a guy who his, his soul, he's going to be spending attorney in a lake of fire and his, he just wants to make a joke of it.

He wants to make light of it. That is something that I think is scary and, you know, we should have a, you know,

I do hope that you guys are going to be praying for him tonight, but he made, he made absolute statements.

He said that we're humans are, are apes, which I even pointed out, secular scientists don't hold to.

Okay. But he said, it's absolute. He said, it's absolute that there, you know, that yeah, we're hominids.

There's a number of them. So, so you go back and look at those arguments and look at how he tries to support these claims, these absolute claims, because if it's an absolute claim by his own definition, it has to be objectively falsifiable and proven.

And yet he, he had things and I even asked him, show me where the statement that all true things are falsifiable is falsifiable.

What did he do? Red herring. Yeah. Because that statement can't be falsified.

And, you know, that's one of the reasons I wanted to point out Romans one and Genesis, you know, as a, as a believer, we know that the scripture tells us in the

Psalms that, you know, all the treasures of wisdom and I'm sorry, in the, in the new Testament, all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ Jesus.

We know that Jesus said, thy word is truth. And we know in the old Testament that the fear of the

Lord is the beginning of knowledge. And we start from the axiom that the word of God is the final standard authority of all truth.

I think the biggest problem that we see most of the time is that Christians are so willing and quick to give up the standard that they're willing to give up the standard of the word of God and say, well,

I really don't know. And I can't stand on that. And the problem is, is the atheist, he is jumping everywhere.

He can to get you to fall out from underneath your position, you know, and he appeals to reason and logic and everything else.

And at the end, if you remember, remember at the very end, he said, um, I have an objective standard for morality.

And I said, subjectively you do. And the reason I said that just for anybody that doesn't understand that is when he's being, when he's making any truth claim or any standard, he is using his own opinion that's subjective.

When we say this is truth, that's truth, logic, reason, morality, we're not coming from Andrew doesn't like, you know, me talking about this one thing.

And so Andrew's objectively saying, I'm wrong. We're saying, Andrew says that when

I say this, according to the scripture, I am an error that's objective because there is a standard that is above everything and everyone.

And unfortunately he will claim objective truth, but he can't stand on it.

He can't account for it. And one of the things, you know,

I do want to point out because this is, this is a, you know, a credit to him. You know, we're, we're kind of in a way tag teaming here, right?

There's three of us against one. And that could put someone on the defensive more. Right. I mean,

I've been in that. I've been on plenty of atheist shows where it's me against 10 people. I was on one show where it was me and 10.

Um, but I've been on several that are like two or three and then me as the only Christian. And it could put you in a little bit more defensive.

Uh, I didn't sense that at all with him. I don't think he's, he was in, you know, and it's not like we all gang up on him.

It's, you know, I think we do it, you know, although Justin sometimes doesn't let him get a word in and I had to tell him in the private chat, like back off.

But, but, you know, I think that, you know, he does, he is respectful.

I think that he, he comes in here and he, he knows that we have, you know, three guys, they're going to ask questions.

And, and I think that he does it in a way where, you know, we're, we have a good conversation.

So, uh, John, did you, were you going to say something there? Yeah, I was going to ask Anthony something. Um, he said earlier about, about how evolution works and it doesn't work by individuals, but it works in communities.

I never heard that before. And when it comes down to it, does that mean like just a bunch of fish just decided to say,

Hey, we're not going to have gills anymore. I mean, I mean, how does that work? I mean, it doesn't make any sense.

It has to come down to one individual who is missing a certain amount of information, a mutation in your

DNA. So yeah, correct. You answered a question. That's the issue. Is, is, but you have to remember evolutionists.

I have played a lot of word games. They've changed definitions. You know, we pointed out, it was either last week or the week before how they've taken the word transitional fossil, which used to mean something in between the complex organisms of the

Cambrian layer, Cambrian layers, Cambrian explosion. And the, the, uh, simple organisms that are in the pre -Cambrian layers, we used to call the stuff in between the transitional fossils, right?

Now they call every fossil, a transitional fossil. So they're trying to get away from what you're bringing up, which is the absolute truth, right?

So as I write my book, for those of you who don't have my book, you're sinning, get the book. Wow. I've got to go to strivingforeturning .org

to pick up his book, but, but all serious, simplify a shameless plug.

We can simplify everything about evolution into this issue of mutation.

And this is the thing we really tried to stress last week. And again, I think the week earlier is to go from the single celled organism that they start with biology, start with this, to go to all the complex life we see today.

We have to add lots of information. The only mechanism they have to add lots of information is mutations.

And so for it's, it's, it's not just unlikely, it's impossible for even one mutation to occur, we don't have mutations that increase functional information, but let's say that we had one, right?

For them to say that this population genetics versus single point mutations, you would have to have these same mutations occur across many different organisms to justify what he was trying to explain.

That's not what biology teaches whatsoever. They teach it, it popped up somewhere and then spreads because that was the, um, stronger survive.

This is the natural selection stuff, what they would call natural selection. So, yeah.

So, so here, here's the thing as we, as we're going to wrap up and, you know, I'm going to put you guys backstage, the, you know,

I do want to give an appeal folks, um, you know, as this is put on these, these, this show is put on by striving for eternity and we, we are a ministry that seeks to disciple and train up a generation of Christians to really impact the world.

And this is just one of many means that we use, but we are, you know, supported a supported ministry by our donors.

And so I want to give an appeal to ask that if, if you find value in this, would you consider helping us continue to do it?

Um, as, as many of you know, there's this thing called COVID it's affected a lot. We've, we've lost a lot of donors.

Um, we've gained some more, but we're, you know, we, I know that we're going to be losing some more that have already told us at the end of the year, we're, we're looking to get more donors.

If you could consider helping out, just go to striving for eternity dot org slash donate.

And what we would do is you could see what different levels of support and whatnot, but we could really use your help.

If you find value in the materials that you're getting here, then would you consider to help us to continue being able to do these things?

It does cost money. And one of the things that we do with our monthly donors, where they really help us, and maybe this is going to be your church, but what we do is we actually striving for targets, smaller churches that can't have that, that those seminars or the conferences in their church, because they're just too small.

Well, that's what our monthly donors help us to do. We actually target smaller churches. It's, it's not a great business model because those churches can't afford it.

And we try to go in to churches like that to give them a weekend seminar, seminars on Bible interpretation, made easy presuppositional apologetics, evangelism.

It's our ambassador evangelism. We have, we're working on ones on social justice. We have the snatch them from the flames.

That's the one where Justin and Anthony and I would, would speak on a variety of topics on discernment.

And so we have lots of different seminars that we can come into your church and do. And so with that, if you want one of those, please contact us, just email speaker at striving for eternity .org

and let us know which, which type of seminar you'd like. If you would like to help us to be able to go to these churches, fly people out, speak and do all the preparation work.

You can do that. If you go to striving for eternity .org slash donate, we'd greatly appreciate the help is, is a listener supported ministry.

We are indebted to those of you who do support us. We thank you. And before you tune out, just remember to be praying for Michael soul today.